250721.mbx

250721.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, July 21, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 144 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Alsobrook Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Andersen Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama A2D2 LLC: Hilliker Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ACRE MORTGAGE: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ACRT PACIFIC LLC: Carmack Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. AHOLD DELHAIZE: Henderson Sues Over Data Breach ALBERTSON'S LLC: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Class Status Stripped from Foster-Kiscaden Suit ALICE'S TEA CUP: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Lynch Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Approves Notice Plan for Attorney Fees APEX GLOBAL: Kopelowitz and Finkelstein Appointed as Class Counsel APPLEONE INC: Feliciano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ARAMARK SERVICES: Harraghy Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas BAM! PIZZA: Court Allows Rest Claims, Dismisses Meal Claims BARCADE LLC: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BAYMARK HEALTH: McCormick Suit Removed to E.D. California BELFOR USA: Duran Suit Removed to E.D. California BLACKWELL 3D CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BLOCK INC: Bailey Suit Removed to N.D. California BLOCK INC: Plaintiff Files Prelim. OK of $12.5M Suit Settlement BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Calleja Sues Over Data Breach BROADWAY SQUARE: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property BUTTERBALL LLC: Marc Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages C.H. ROBINSON: Wood Suit Removed to N.D. California CBC LLC: Ghebari Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois CENTRAL KENTUCKY RADIOLOGY: Johnson Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky CENTRIC SOFTWARE: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Ghost Cattle Scheme COOLEY HOLDINGS 3: Givens Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas COOPER HEALTH: Hines Suit Removed to D. New Jersey COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES: Mok Sues Over False Discount Scheme CROWN ENERGY: Dozier Suit Removed to S.D. California DIPTYQUE DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DNA DIAGNOSTIC CENTER: Harmon Files Suit in N.D. Illinois DON MORPHY: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EARTHBAR LLC: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ERIC WELCH: Fisher Sues Over Predatory and Unlawful Loans FCA US: Cuneo Gilbert Replaces Lockridge as Co-Lead Counsel FRYING PAN INC: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website GARDA CL WEST: Paredas Suit Removed to E.D. California GOURMET NUT: Gonzales Sues Over Underfilling of Products HARD EIGHT: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Text Claims HERITAGE'S DAIRY STORES: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property JCG INDUSTRIES: Ruffin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois JYM ENTERPRISES: Casas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. KHOROS LLC: Church Sues Over Failure to Provide WARN Act Notice KUEHNE + NAGEL: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages LAUNDRY 201: Salas Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Compensation LEVI STRAUSS & CO: Whitfield Suit Removed to D. Nevada MICHAEL FOODS: Gray Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MICHIGAN: Judge Greenlits Class Suit Over Edenville Dam Collapse MIDEA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Moldy Air Conditioners NEIMAN MARCUS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $3.5M PEACEFUL WAY: Cazares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Snack Products PRIME TIME: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Suit QUALITY CLEANERS: Jenkins Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida REAL TIME STAFFING: Lucero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. REALTY ONE GROUP: Gill Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida RED BULL DISTRIBUTION: Brilliant Suit Removed to S.D. Florida SAFEWAY INC: Somera Suit Removed to W.D. Washington SAIA MOTOR: Amaya Suit Removed to C.D. California SHAWN CARTER: Standing Order Entered in Satterthwaite Class Suit SPECTRUM CABLE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Fees SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Approval Hearing Moved to Sept. 19 SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Universal-Investment Named Lead Plaintiff TABLEU SOFTWARE: $5,500 in Residual Settlement Funds Donated TRACTOR SUPPLY: Keesler Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee UNITED STATES: Judge Blocks Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship VIKI INC: Data Privacy Class Suit Settlement Reaches $8-Mil. VILLAS MARKET: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VOXELMAPS INC: Paiz Suit Removed to N.D. California VYTL CONTROLS: Soares Sues Over Failures to Pay All Wages WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California WENDT BROTHERS: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property WEST SHORE HOME: Walker Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Henry Suit Removed to E.D. California YI JIA HAPPY: Zhuang Sues Over Unlawful Employment Policies ********* 3M COMPANY: Alsobrook Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Robert A. Alsobrook, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00965 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on July 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06840-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Personal Injury. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Gregory Cade, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. Yahn Eric Olson, esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP PC 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Phone: (205) 328-9200 Fax: (205) 328-9206 Email: gary@elglaw.com GregC@elglaw.com kmckie@elglaw.com yolson@elglaw.com 3M COMPANY: Andersen Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Melissa Andersen, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-902126.00 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on July 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01076-SGC. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foam ("AFFF") that Plaintiffs allege caused them personal injuries. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that Plaintiffs were exposed to these substances through drinking water at their homes and/or places of work, which in turn caused them to develop certain types of cancers.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com A2D2 LLC: Hilliker Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A2D2, LLC. The case is styled as Lily Hilliker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A2D2, LLC doing business as: Mountain View Nissan of Dalton, Case No. 4:25-cv-00181-WMR (N.D. Ga., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. A2D2, LLC doing business as Mountain View Nissan -- https://www.nissanofdalton.com/ -- is a Nissan dealerships.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com ACRE MORTGAGE: Knoche Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc. The case is styled as Norman Knoche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Acre Mortgage & Financial, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00553 (M.D. Fla., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Acre Mortgage & Financial Inc. -- https://acremortgage.com/ -- is a mortgage company with services in New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi.[BN] ACRT PACIFIC LLC: Carmack Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ACRT Pacific, LLC. The case is styled as Joe Carmack, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ACRT Pacific, LLC, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0008808 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., June 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." ACRT Pacific -- https://pacific.acrt.com/ -- specializes in the vegetation management challenges utilities, pipelines, DOT and railroads face in the state of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq. BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, PC 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 450 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6006 Phone: 310-975-1493 Fax: 310-675-0861 Email: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com AHOLD DELHAIZE: Henderson Sues Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------- Joshua Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AHOLD DELHAIZE USA SERVICES, LLC, FOOD LION, LLC, and GIANT FOOD, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00531-TDS-LPA (M.D.N.C., June 27, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII"1) and Protected Health Information ("PHI" or "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). On November 6, 2024, Defendant Ahold detected a cybersecurity issue involving unauthorized access to some of its internal U.S. business systems. In response, Defendant Ahold launched an investigation to determine the nature and scope of the Data Breach. The following types of Private Information may have been impacted in the Data Breach: name, contact information (for example, postal and email address and telephone number), date of birth, government-issued identification numbers (for example, Social Security, passport and driver's license numbers), financial account information (for example, bank account number), health information (for example, workers' compensation information and medical information contained in employment records), and employment-related information. On June 26, 2025, Defendant Ahold issued a notice of public disclosure about the Data Breach and began sending notice letters to individuals impacted. The Defendants failed to safeguard individuals' highly sensitive Private Information. The Plaintiff and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former employees of Defendants. Ahold is the largest grocery retail group on the east coast and the fourth largest in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Wilkerson, Esq. WILKERSON JUSTUS PLLC PO Box 54 Asheville, NC 28802 Phone: (828) 316-6902 Facsimile: (828) 257-2767 Email: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Phone: (954) 647-1866 Fax: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 1 West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com ALBERTSON'S LLC: Hill Suit Removed to W.D. Washington ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALBERTSON'S LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as ALBERTSON'S, ALBERTSONS'S DISTRIBUTION CENTER, HAGGEN, SAFEWAY STORE, and SAFEWAY; ALBERTSON S COMPANIES SPECIALTY CARE, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as ALBERTSONS COMPANIES SPECIALTY CARE, LLC; ALBERTSONS HEALTH, LLC, a foreign limited liability company; ASC MEDIA SERVICES, INC., a foreign profit corporation; CARR-GOTTSTEIN FOODS CO., a foreign profit corporation doing business as J.B. GOTTSTEIN & CO. and J.B. GOTTSTEIN WHOLESALE GROUP; GROCERYWORKS.COM OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as SAFEWAY.COM, GROCERYWORKS.COM, GROCERYWORKS.COM OPERATING COMPANY, and GROCERYWORKS; SAFEWAY GIFT CARDS, LLC, a foreign limited liability company doing business as SAFEWAY GIFT CARDS LLC; SAFEWAY, INC., a foreign profit corporation doing business as ALBERTSONS CENTRAL FILL PHARMACY VANCOUVER, CHINA EXPRESS, FAST SHOP, KEIL'S FOOD STORES, SAFEWAY FUEL CENTER, SAFEWAY STORE, SAFEWAY FUEL, SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED -- EGG DEALER, SAFEWAY STORES, BAKERY DIVISION, SAFEWAY STORES -- GROCERY WAREHOUSE, SAFEWAY CIGARETTE WAREHOUSE, SAFEWAY INC., SAFEWAY STORES INCORPORATED TOBACCO WHS, SAFEWAY STORES, INCORPORATED, SAFEWAY FUEL STATION, SAFEWAY FUEL, SAFEWAY INC. FUEL, SAFEWAY DISTRIBUTION CENTER, SAFEWAY TRAINING SCHOOL, SAFEWAY GROWLER STORE, HAGGEN, HAGGEN MARKET STREET CATERING, SAFEWAY GASOLINE, LAKE TAPPS CORK VINTAGE TAPHOUSE, SAFEWAY BELLEVUE ICE CREAM, SAFEWAY DISTRIBUTION CENTER -- KENT DC, SAFEWAY STORE FUEL CENTER, and SAFEWAY STORE, FUEL CENTER; and DOES 1-20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-16131-5 SEA was removed from the Superior Court of King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01216. The Plaintiff alleges that "he and more than 40 Class members applied to job openings with Defendants for positions located in Washington where the postings did not disclose the wage scale or salary range, and/or a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant." The Plaintiff alleges that some or even all of Defendants' job postings were deficient: "Defendants continue to withhold pay and/or benefits information in some, if not all, of their job postings for Washington based positions."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy W. Emery, Esq. Patrick B. Reddy, Esq. Paul Cipriani, Esq. Hannah M. Hamley, Esq. EMERY REDDY PLLC 600 Stewart St., Suite 1100 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: 206.442.9106 Email: emeryt@emeryreddy.com reddyp@emeryreddy.com paul@emeryreddy.com hannah@emeryreddy.com The Defendants are represented by: D. Michael Reilly, Esq. Priya B. Vivian, Esq. Erin M. Wilson, Esq. 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101-3808 Phone: 206.223.7000 Facsimile: 206.223.7107 Email: reillym@ballardspahr.com vivianp@ballardspahr.com wilsonem@ballardspahr.com ALBUQUERQUE, NM: Class Status Stripped from Foster-Kiscaden Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Courtney Foster and Matthew Kiscaden, on their behalf and behalf of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. City of Albuquerque, Defendant, Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-00270-MV-JFR (D.N.M.), Judge Martha Vazquez of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted Plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss class action allegations without prejudice. United States Magistrate Judge John F. Robbenhaar filed a Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition ("PFRD") on June 6, 2025. The Magistrate Judge recommended that (1) Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action Allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint, filed May 30, 2025, be granted; and (2) the Court direct the Clerk of the Court to amend the case caption to omit the purported class action claims. The Court conducted its de novo review of the case, including a review of the evidence of record, and found the Magistrate Judge's proposed findings and recommendations were not clearly erroneous, contrary to law or otherwise an abuse of discretion. The Court therefore adopted the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition. As per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2), objections were due no later than June 26. No objections were filed. The failure to make timely objections to the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions. The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition and granted Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action Allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint. It is further directed that the Clerk of the Court amend the case caption to omit the purported class action claims, effectively converting the case from a class action to an individual lawsuit while maintaining the underlying claims against the City of Albuquerque. ALICE'S TEA CUP: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ALICE'S TEA CUP, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05523 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.alicesteacup.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.alicesteacup.com, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Lynch Suit Removed to W.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Patrick Lynch, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Allegheny Health Network, Intrasystems LLC, Case No. GD 25-000852 was removed from the Allegheny County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00900-WSS to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Allegheny Health Network -- https://www.ahn.org/ -- based in Pittsburgh, is a non-profit, 14-hospital academic medical system with facilities located in Western Pennsylvania and one hospital in Western New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Brad A. Funari, Esq. Justin J. Kontul, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 225 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-3142 Phone: (412) 288-3124 Email: bfunari@reedsmith.com jkontul@reedsmith.com ANTERO RESOURCES: Court Approves Notice Plan for Attorney Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as The Grissoms, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Antero Resources Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-2028 (S.D. Ohio), Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted, in part, the Plaintiff's Motion to Approve Notice Plan Regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs. The Court awarded the Plaintiff partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim in 2023 after denying Antero's motion for summary judgment. The parties stipulated to damages of $10 million, and the Court entered judgment accordingly. Antero appealed, and in April 2025, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's judgment. Following the appeal, Plaintiff moved the Court for an award of attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and expenses. Plaintiff seeks $4.16 million in attorneys' fees, or 40% of the judgment amount, $219,072 in litigation costs, and a $10,000 service award for the named Plaintiff. The lawsuit was brought to recover additional royalty payments on natural gas liquids (NGLs) originating from certain Antero-owned and producing wells in the Ohio Utica Shale formation. The Court observed that with modifications, the language of the notice is directed to the class members in a reasonable manner to satisfy Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h). The notice informs the certified class of the maximum attorneys' fees sought by Class Counsel (40% of the judgment), the expenses sought by Class Counsel ($219,072), and the service award sought for the representative Plaintiff. The Court added a sentence to the Notice making the class aware of the service award sought by representative Plaintiff. The Court also extended the 30-day deadline to file an objection to the motion to 60 days, to ensure that those interested in making an objection have a reasonable amount of time to do so. The Motion to Approve Notice is granted in part. The Court ordered that counsel shall work with the Notice Administrator, Epperly Re:Solutions, to mail the Notice to class members in the manner set forth in Plaintiff's Motion, as modified by the Court. Epperly Re:Solutions may be reached at: David W. Epperly EPPERLY RE:SOLUTIONS 122 Capitol Street, Suite 201 Charleston, WV 25301 Tel: 304-549-3231 The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a Status Report no later than 21 days after the deadline to file objections expires, apprising the Court of any objections received from the class. The Status Report should inform the Court of the objections received and attach any such objections. After the Status Report is filed, the Court will determine if a hearing on the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses is necessary. The judgment amount is $10 million, plus interest of $400,000. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJg8MF APEX GLOBAL: Kopelowitz and Finkelstein Appointed as Class Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as KEIA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APEX GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-05021 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Philip M. Halpern of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Plaintiff's motion for consolidation and appointment of interim class counsel. The Court considered Plaintiff's motion for consolidation and appointment of Interim Class Counsel along with "any responses or oppositions thereto from counsel for Defendant and counsel for Plaintiffs in the related cases, and all supporting papers filed in support of the motion or any response or opposition thereto." Finding "GOOD CAUSE SHOWN," the Court granted Plaintiff's motion in its entirety. Judge Halpern ordered consolidation of four related actions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). The consolidated actions are: (1) Thompson v. Apex Global Solutions, LLC, No. 7:25-cv-05021; (2) Morrison v. Apex Global Solutions LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05034; (3) Williams v. Apex Global Solutions, LLC, No. 7:25-cv-05040; and (4) Daly v. Apex Global Solutions, LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05198 Judge Halpern appointed Kopelowitz Ostrow PA and Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei Pearson & Garber, LLP as Interim Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)(3). The Court directed that "Within 30 days of this Order, Interim Class Counsel shall file a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint." The Court established procedures for future related cases, ordering that "If any actions filed in this Court in the future shall be related to any of these pending related cases, they will be consolidated with these Consolidated Actions." The Court further directed that "Interim Class Counsel shall serve a copy of this Order on all counsel in any such future-filed related cases" and that "All papers filed in the Consolidated Actions shall be filed under Case No. 7:25-cv-05021, the lowest docketed case." Judge Halpern granted Interim Class Counsel broad authority, stating they "shall have the authority and overall responsibility to litigate this action, speak for the named plaintiff(s) and absent putative class members." Their responsibilities include "making or approving any filings made on behalf of any plaintiffs in this action; engaging in discussions with Defendant's counsel; litigating and trying the action; engaging in: settlement discussions (including but not limited to, mediations, arbitrations, Alternative Dispute Resolution programs, and informal or formal settlement talks)." The Court established that "Interim Class Counsel shall have sole responsibility for decisions on whether and how to associate with, or allocate work among, any plaintiffs' counsel working on the case" and that "No filing on behalf of plaintiffs shall be made in the case without the consent of Interim Class Counsel. Regarding record-keeping, the Court ordered that "Interim Class Counsel shall be responsible for maintaining and collecting contemporaneous time, billing, and expense records for any work done on behalf of plaintiffs in this action. The Court provided a mechanism for challenging the interim counsel designation, stating that "No later than 10 days following the filing by Interim Class Counsel of plaintiff's motion for class certification, any interested party wishing to have the Court reconsider this interim designation of class counsel may file an appropriate motion to that effect and argue why the Court's Order should be reconsidered." A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Uqs8mQ APPLEONE INC: Feliciano Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Appleone, Inc. The case is styled as Adaline Feliciano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Appleone, Inc., Case No. 25STCV18914 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." AppleOne, Inc. -- https://www.appleone.com/ -- is a staffing and employment services company with its headquarters in Glendale, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com ARAMARK SERVICES: Harraghy Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aramark Services, Inc. The case is styled as Corey Harraghy, for himself and others similarly situated v. Aramark Services, Inc. F/K/A ARAMARK CORPORATION, Case No. 250700570 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, July 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Declaratory and Injunctive Relief." Aramark -- https://www.aramark.com/ -- provides food services and facilities management to hospitals, universities, school districts, stadiums, and other businesses around the world.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Tucker, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Phone: (412) 877-5220 Email: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com BAM! PIZZA: Court Allows Rest Claims, Dismisses Meal Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- BAM! PIZZA: Court Allows Rest Claims, Dismisses Meal Claims In the case captioned as Deborah West, Joseph Belka, and Lynne Balderson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAM! Pizza Management, Inc., Brian Bailey; DOE Corp. 1-10; and John DOE 1-10, Defendants, Civil Action No. 22-cv-00209-SMD-JMR (D.N.M.), Judge Sarah M. Davenport of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted, in part, and denied, in part, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count Six of the Complaint. Plaintiff Joseph Belka worked as a pizza delivery driver for Defendants at their Domino's Pizza location in Durango, Colorado, from 2019 to 2020. Plaintiff alleged that during his employment, he was never "completely relieved of his duties" and given 30-minute "off-duty, uninterrupted meal breaks." Plaintiff further alleged that he was never "informed of his right to take 30-minute meal breaks." Instead, Defendants forced Plaintiff and other employees at the Colorado locations to eat their meals on duty. When employees took on-duty meals, they did not clock out, and they were paid for that time. The plaintiff also alleged that Defendants denied employees 10-minute rest breaks for every four hours worked. This is a proposed class action filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Colorado Wage Act, and Colorado Wage Order. A Colorado Subclass includes "all current and former delivery drivers employed at the Defendants' Domino's stores owned, operated and controlled by Defendants in Colorado, between the date six years prior to the filing of the original complaint and the date of final judgment in the manner." The Colorado Subclass seeks recovery on Counts Four through Seven of the Complaint regarding Defendants' intentional failure to pay minimum wages, failure to properly reimburse drivers for delivery-rated expenses, failure to provide duty-free meal periods, and unjust enrichment from their alleged illegal conduct. The Court examined the Colorado Wage Order, which provides that employees who work for five consecutive hours or more are "entitled to an uninterrupted and duty-free meal period of at least a 30-minute duration." However, where "the nature of the business activity or other circumstances make an uninterrupted meal period impractical," employers may instead provide employees with a "fully compensated" meal period. According to the Court, the language "unambiguously creates a right to an uninterrupted 30-minute meal period per five-hours of work." This conclusion was driven in significant part by the legislature's use of the word "shall," which expresses a mandate. The Court rejected Defendants' interpretation of the statute as creating two "choices." The Court found that on-duty meal breaks are an exception to the rule, not an equivalent option, and must be construed "narrowly." The Court explained that the Colorado Division of Labor and Employment has specified that except in "special cases," an employer cannot "declare all meal periods for all employees impractical, and never provide them, even if it pays for the time." The Court noted that "paying employees for meal breaks does not fulfill their legal obligation. If it did, employers would be able to unilaterally substitute off-duty meals with on-duty ones and cause the exception to 'swallow the rule.'" Despite finding a colorable claim under the Colorado Wage Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's meal break claim because it failed to identify viable damages. The Court explained that Plaintiff's claim failed under Rule 12(b)(6) because it did not seek a viable remedy. The Colorado Wage Order permits an employee who received less than their full wages to "recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount owed, together with reasonable attorney fees and court costs." Judge Davenport found that despite this accommodating standard, Plaintiff failed to state a "facially plausible" right to relief because he did not have any associated "wage" claim. The complaint stated that "as a result of being denied meal and rest periods, Plaintiff Belk and the Colorado Meal and Rest Break Class received less than the legal minimum wage applicable for all hours worked." However, at no point did Plaintiff explain how paid meal breaks led to sub-minimum wages. The Court noted that "while Defendants likely enjoyed some benefit from having employees work through their meal breaks, this benefit does not amount to an 'earned' or 'vested' wage." Plaintiff's prayer for equitable relief also could not sustain his claim because he was no longer employed by Defendants. Rest Break Claims Survive The Court concluded that the rest break claim, also outlined in Count Six, survives. Plaintiff alleged that Defendants denied employees' 10-minute rest breaks for every four hours worked. In contrast to meal breaks, the Colorado Wage Order specifically provides that "a failure by an employer to authorize and permit a 10-minute compensated rest period is a failure to pay 10 minutes of wages at the employee's agreed-upon or legally required (whichever is higher) rate of pay." Thus, Plaintiff's alleged missed rest periods did not pose a damages issue. Regarding the statute of limitations, Judge Davenport agreed with the Colorado District Court's reasoning on how to proceed while the Colorado Supreme Court reviews Perez. The Judge applied the six-year statute of limitations to the rest break claims, as the Colorado Court of Appeals held was appropriate. The Court explained that this decision "balances comity with efficiency and applies a six-year statute of limitation to move forward with this litigation while Perez remains pending." Should the Colorado Supreme Court hold that a shorter limitations period applies, the Court will revisit the definition of the Colorado Subclass. The Court ordered that Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss Count Six of Plaintiff's Complaint was granted as to Plaintiff's claim for meal periods and denied as to shortening the statute of limitations. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and the Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NSeMFv BARCADE LLC: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. BARCADE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05522 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.barcade.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.barcade.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com BAYMARK HEALTH: McCormick Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John McCormick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25CECG02453 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00811-KES-SAB. The Plaintiff filed the State Court Action alleging claims for violation of the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act; and violation of the California Unfair Competition law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Alexis Cruz, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 280-8800 Facsimile: (310) 280-8859 Email: acruz@bakerlaw.com - and - Lisa A. Houssiere, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 811 Main Street, Suite 1100 Houston, TX 77002 Phone: (713) 751-1600 Facsimile: (713) 751-1717 Email: lhoussiere@bakerlaw.com BELFOR USA: Duran Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Duran, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BELFOR USA GROUP INC., a Colorado corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BCV-25-101840 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00786-CDB. The Plaintiff bases his claims on alleged violations of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges: Violation of Labor Code Sections 510, 558, and 1194; Violation of Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512; of Labor Code Section 226.7; Violation of Labor Code Sections 201-203; Violation of Labor Code §226; and Violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700 Chicago, IL 60603-3433 Phone: +1 312 499 6700 Fax: +1 312 499 6701 Email: GMaatman@duanemorris.com - and - Jennifer A. Riley, Esq. Betty Luu, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450 Phone: +1 213 689 7400 Facsimile: +1 213 689 7401 Email: JARiley@duanemorris.com BLuu@duanemorris.com BLACKWELL 3D CONSTRUCTION: Sanchez Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Blackwell 3D Construction Corp. The case is styled as Michelle Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blackwell 3D Construction Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-22911-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Blackwell 3D Construction Corp. -- https://www.blackwell3d.com/ -- operates as a 3D house printing company.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BLOCK INC: Bailey Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bradley Bailey, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v. BLOCK, INC., D/B/A CASH APP, SQUARE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., FIRST ELECTRONIC BANK, and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV124671 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-05625. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violations of the Military Lending Act ("MLA"); and the Georgia Payday Loan Act ("GPLA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111-4057 Phone: 415.477.5700 Facsimile: 415.477.5710 Email: elizabeth.andrews@troutman.com BLOCK INC: Plaintiff Files Prelim. OK of $12.5M Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Kimberly Bottoms filed a motion for preliminary approval of a $12.5 million settlement with Cash App parent company Block Inc. Why: Bottoms claimed Block violated the Washington Consumer Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited text messages. Where: The Cash App class action settlement was filed in Washington federal court. How to File a Claim: The settlement website isn't live yet. Subscribe to our free newsletter, and we'll notify you as soon as claim instructions are available. Cash App parent company Block Inc. has agreed to pay $12.5 million to resolve claims it sent unsolicited text messages through the mobile payment service's "Invite Friends" referral program. Plaintiff Kimberly Bottoms filed the Cash App spam texts class action settlement motion June 30 in Washington federal court. The settlement will benefit consumers who received a Cash App referral program text message while a Washington resident between Nov. 14, 2019, and the latest date to be provided to the settlement administrator identifying the phone numbers with Washington area codes. Bottoms filed the Cash App class action lawsuit in November 2023 alleging Block violated the Washington Consumer Electronic Mail Act and the Washington Consumer Protection Act by sending the unsolicited text messages. Under the terms of the Cash App spam texts class action settlement, Block will establish a $12.5 million settlement fund to provide pro rata payments to class members who submit a timely and valid claim form. The settlement fund will also cover the costs of administering the settlement, as well as attorneys' fees and costs and a service award for the class representative. Each class member who submits a valid claim will receive a pro rata share of the settlement fund. Class counsel estimates each claimant will receive between $88 and $147, or between 17% and 29% of the $500 statutory damages per violation of the Washington Commercial Electronic Mail Act. Individual notice will be sent via email and postcard to all identifiable settlement class members, while an online publication notice campaign will target potential class members who cannot be identified through reasonable efforts. The settlement class members will have the option to receive payment via check or electronic transfer, such as Venmo or PayPal. Block denies any wrongdoing but agreed to the settlement to resolve the claims against it. In January, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ordered Cash App to pay $175 million to resolve allegations that it failed to provide adequate customer service and fraud protection. Last year, Cash App agreed to a $15 million settlement to resolve claims around a data breach that happened in 2022 and 2023. [GN] BRIDGES EXPERIENCE: Calleja Sues Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------- Penelope Calleja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIDGES EXPERIENCE, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-01291-M (E.D.N.C., July 3, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (collectively "Private Information") that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed in June 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"), arising from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. On June 26, 2025, the Defendant issued a notice of public disclosure and started sending out notice letter to individuals impacted the Defendant failed to take precautions designed to keep individuals' Private Information secure. The Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. The Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Plaintiff and Class Members Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. The Defendant admits that information in its system was accessed by unauthorized individuals, though it provided little information regarding how the Data Breach occurred. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the Data Breach signifies that the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft. The Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided their Private Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a clinical experience software platform that works with students, universities, and hospitals to facilitate the clinical rotations process.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana Smith, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: dsmith@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com BROADWAY SQUARE: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ------------------------------------------------------ Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. BROADWAY SQUARE REALTY, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-12765 (D.N.J., July 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property--and the tenant spaces therein--on several occasions, her last visit having occurred on or about April 19, 2025. The Plaintiff has visited the Property, including Gallery Pizza, Chang Wang Chinese, and Gel Nails and Spa with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that the Property a contained a litany of ADA violations--both in architecture and policy. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. BROADWAY SQUARE REALTY, LLC, owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com BUTTERBALL LLC: Marc Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Marie Marc, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BUTTERBALL, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00391-BO (E.D.N.C., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act ("NCWHA"), for not fully compensating employees who work or have worked at Defendant. This case concerns Defendant Butterball's policies and practices of failing to pay proper statutory overtime wages pursuant to the FLSA and earned and accrued wages such as promised wages including, but not limited to, straight and/or regular and premium rate wages on their regular pay date in violation of the NCWHA, consistent with Defendant Butterball's earning statements and handbook to Plaintiffs, which provide promises relating to promised straight, premium, shift differentials, among other compensation policies and practices. The Plaintiffs consist of current and former employees working on the production floor and specifically on the production line in either first or second processing for Defendant Butterball. It is Defendant's systemic company-wide policy and practice to willfully fail and refuse to compensate employees for all statutory overtime compensation at time and one-half for all hours worked more than 40 in a week, due and owing to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees, in direct violation of the FLSA. In addition, Defendant Butterball is aware of Plaintiffs working generally in excess of 40 hours per week on a regular basis without being properly compensated time and one half for all hours over 40 per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant in North Carolina. Butterball is a turkey processing company serving over thirty (30) countries across the globe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq. Hannah B. Simmons, Esq. Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC 1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130 Cary, NC 27513 Phone: (919) 741-8693 Fax: (919) 869-1853 Email: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com C.H. ROBINSON: Wood Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elizabeth Wood, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC, a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. C24-03249 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-05641. On June 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint ("FAC") against Defendant, which added an eighth cause of action under the California Private Attorneys General Act. In determining the amount in controversy to support its Notice of Second Removal, Defendant applies a reasonable violation rate based only on damages sought by Plaintiff as a result of the alleged: failure to provide compliant meal periods; failure to authorize and permit compliant rest periods; wage statement penalties; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses and attorneys' fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq. Carmen M. Aguado, Esq. Vi N. Applen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com carmen.aguado@ogletree.com vi.applen@ogletree.com CBC LLC: Ghebari Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against CBC, LLC. The case is styled as Nasim Ghebari, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CBC, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07264 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. CBC -- https://www.cbcollects.com/ -- offers debt collection and account servicing for healthcare systems, using advanced technology to deliver maximized recovery and personalized service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. Omar Tayseer Sulaiman, Esq. Alexander James Taylor, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD. 2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8180 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com osulaiman@sulaimanlaw.com ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com CENTRAL KENTUCKY RADIOLOGY: Johnson Files Suit in E.D. Kentucky --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Central Kentucky Radiology. The case is styled as Mary Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Central Kentucky Radiology, Case No. 5:25-cv-00215-GFVT (E.D. Ky., June 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Account Receivable. Central Kentucky Radiology -- https://ckr.net/ -- is a distinguished provider of radiological services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM 3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 474-3800 Fax: (213) 471-4160 Email: daniel@slfla.com - and - John C. Whitfield, Esq. WHITFIELD CROSBY & FLYNN PLLC 19 N. Main Street Madisonville, KY 42431 Phone: (270) 821-0656 Fax: (270) 825-1163 Email: JWhitfield@wcfjustice.com CENTRIC SOFTWARE: Garcia Suit Removed to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Carlos Garcia, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. CENTRIC SOFTWARE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25CV465982 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-05615-VKD. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he worked for Defendants and when he applied for employment, Defendant performed a background investigation on him. The Plaintiff alleges that he and the putative class were provided non-compliant disclosures in connection with such background investigations before obtaining consumer reports from third parties in violation of the Federal Fair Credit and Reporting Act ("FRCA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Samuel J. Maselli, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1600 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 341-0404 Facsimile: (916) 341-0141 Email: Samuel.Maselli@jacksonlewis.com COMMUNITY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Ghost Cattle Scheme -------------------------------------------------------------- Melanie Antonitis, writing for WSPD Local 6, reports that the Paducah-based Bryant Law Center and two other firms have filed a class action lawsuit against three financial institutions for their alleged role in a multi-million-dollar "ghost cattle" scheme, Bryant Law Center founder Mark Bryant announced Thursday, July 10. The class action alleges the banks -- Community Financial Services Bank, RABO AgriFinance and Mechanics Bank -- sustained a Ponzi scheme by financially backing and ignoring signs of misconduct by the man at the center of the scheme, Brian McClain. McClain, a Benton farmer and business owner, was accused of defrauding investors of millions of dollars through a fictitious cattle investment operation before he died by suicide in 2023. The suit, filed on behalf of investors from Graves County, claims the financial institutions' failures enabled McClain to appear to be running a successful cattle operation while he diverted funds from new investors to pay older ones. "The plaintiffs, many of whom were everyday Kentuckians, invested their savings in what they believed was a stable, high-yield cattle operation," a news release from Bryant read in part. "In reality, the complaint states, the promised cattle never existed, and the returns that were paid were paid using new investor funds in classic Ponzi fashion. The complaint outlines how the banks allegedly turned a blind eye to hundreds of millions of dollars in irregular and suspicious transactions and details how each bank played a distinct role in facilitating McClain's scheme." The complaint claims that RABO AgriFinance extended more than $70 million in credit to McClain despite concerns over poor recordkeeping and actual cattle ownership. CFSB allegedly allowed more than 100 days of overdrawn accounts -- at times by more than $1 million -- and did not act despite signs of suspicious intercompany transfers. It also claims Mechanics Bank knowingly participated in a pattern of overdrafts and transfers. The complaint also alleges CFSB was familiar with McClain's financial position before and during the scheme and failed to act amid a drastic change in his finances. The class action "alleges claims for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting theft by deception, gross negligence, aiding and abetting securities fraud, and civil conspiracy," according to the news release. "This case is about fairness and transparency," a statement from Bryant read. "Innocent, hardworking Kentuckians were misled and financially harmed by a system that prioritized profit over people. We believe the law is on their side." According to Bryant, plaintiffs in the class action are seeking compensatory and punitive damages, attorney fees and "other appropriate relief permitted by law." The class action was filed in Graves County Circuit Court. Trial attorneys Mark Bryant, Emily Roark and David Bryant of Bryant Law Center; Ron Parry of Strauss Troy; and William F. McMurry of William F. McMurry and Associates filed the suit. Earlier this year, a complaint was filed in a U.S. bankruptcy court alleging the same banks named in the class action suit enabled the ghost cattle scheme. [GN] COOLEY HOLDINGS 3: Givens Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cooley Holdings 3, LLC. The case is styled as Tiffany Givens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cooley Holdings 3, LLC doing business as: Clay Cooley Chevrolet, Case No. 4:25-cv-00678 (E.D. Tex., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Cooley Holdings 3, LLC doing business as Clay Cooley Chevrolet -- https://www.claycooleychevy.com/ -- offers an outstanding selection of new and pre-owned vehicles in Irving, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com COOPER HEALTH: Hines Suit Removed to D. New Jersey -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tiffany Hines, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COOPER HEALTH SYSTEM, Case No. CAM-L-001775-25 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-12744. The Plaintiff purports to bring a class action on behalf of herself and "all individuals within the United States of America whose PHI/PII was exposed to unauthorized third-parties as a result of the data breach experienced by Defendant on September 1, 2023."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Susan M. Leming, Esq. BROWN & CONNERY, LLP 360 Haddon Avenue Westmont, New Jersey 08108 Phone: 856-854-8900 Email: sleming@brownconnery.com COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES: Mok Sues Over False Discount Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mok, for herself, as a private attorney general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COVERCRAFT INDUSTRIES, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-06104 (C.D. Cal., July 5, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's massive and consistent false discount advertising scheme on its website and in its marketing emails, in violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); False Advertising Law (FAL); and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and the California Business & Professions Codes. Specifically, Covercraft advertises perpetual or near-perpetual discounts on virtually all of its products. These discounts are taken from Covercraft's advertised strikethrough reference prices for its products. Covercraft's discounts typically range from 20% to 40% off of Covercraft's advertised reference prices for the products. Covercraft represents these reference prices to be the regular and normal prices of the products, from which the advertised discounts are calculated. Covercraft's advertised discounts and reference prices for its products are false because Covercraft advertises perpetual discounts on the products and never offers the products at their advertised reference price. Covercraft also advertises false limited-time discounts for its products to induce consumers to purchase the products immediately before they supposedly return to the (fictitious) reference price. For example, Covercraft uses countdown clocks to represent that its sales are on the verge of ending. In reality, the discounts are never-ending and continue past the advertised sale end date. Covercraft's false discount advertising is so pervasive across all of its products and all of its advertising that it is apparent that the heart of Covercraft's marketing plan is to deceive the public, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased from the Covercraft website one or more products advertised with a discount. Covercraft operates the Covercraft.com website where it advertises, markets, and sells car covers, seat covers, dashboard covers, floor mats, car sunshades, and other vehicle protection products directly to consumers throughout California and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. HATTIS LUKACS & CORRINGTON 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Phone: (425) 233-8650 Facsimile: (425) 412-7171 Email: dan@hattislaw.com CROWN ENERGY: Dozier Suit Removed to S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Llyod Dozier, an individual, on behalf of himself and the State of California and aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) v. CROWN ENERGY SERVICES, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 25CU025780C was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01644-BAS-AHG. In his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action: Failure to Pay Minimum/Regular Wages; Failure to Pay State Overtime; Failure to Pay Wages Timely; Failure to Comply with Meal and Rest Break Laws; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Provide and Maintain Records; Failure to Reimburse Expenses; Sick Pay Violations; and Violations of Various Miscellaneous Provisions of the Labor Code via the PAGA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Laura Fleming, Esq. Philip K. Lem, Esq. Jonathan A. Arjonilla, Esq. PAYNE & FEARS LLP 4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 851-1100 Facsimile: (949) 851-1212 Email: lf@paynefears.com pkl@paynefears.com jaa@paynefears.com DIPTYQUE DISTRIBUTION: Sued Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Devin Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DIPTYQUE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03691 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.diptyqueparis.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com DNA DIAGNOSTIC CENTER: Harmon Files Suit in N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DNA Diagnostic Center, LLC. The case is styled as Mikia Harmon, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DNA Diagnostic Center, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-07211 (N.D. Ill., June 27, 2025). The nature of suit is state as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. DNA Diagnostics Center (DDC) -- https://dnacenter.com/ -- is one of the world's largest and most trusted DNA paternity testing laboratories, maintaining the highest levels of accreditation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mason A. Barney, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 5the Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone: (212) 532-1091 Email: mbarney@sirillp.com DON MORPHY: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Devin Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. DON MORPHY NEW YORK, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-03690 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.donmorphy.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com EARTHBAR LLC: Valencia Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Justin Valencia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. EARTHBAR, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05524 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.earthbar.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ERIC WELCH: Fisher Sues Over Predatory and Unlawful Loans --------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Fisher, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ERIC WELCH; JAY MCGRAW; CREDITSERVE, INC.; SHANE THIN ELK; PETER LENGKEEK; RORY ANNE ZIEGLER; SUMMER DRAPEAU; CHRISTINE OBAGO; MARK WELLS; FABIAN HOWE, SR.; KYLE LOUDNER; and JOHN DOES 1 - 40, Case No. 3:25-cv-01698-WQH-DEB (S.D. Cal., July 3, 2025), is brought to secure redress from predatory and unlawful loans made by: Defendants Welch, McGraw, and CreditServe (collectively, the "CreditServe Defendants"); Defendant Shane Thin Elk ("Thin Elk," together with the CreditServe Defendants, the "Non-Tribal Defendants"); Defendants Peter Lengkeek, Rory-Anne Ziegler, Summer Drapeau, Christine Obago, Mark Wells, Fabian Howe, Sr., and Kyle Loudner (collectively, the "Tribal Defendants"); and John Does, 1-40 (when together with the Non-Tribal Defendants and the Tribal Defendants, "Defendants"). The Non-Tribal Defendants have convinced the Tribal Defendants to let them use the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe's (the "Tribe") name as a "front" for numerous predatory lending enterprises, including one that operates under the name Wahido Lending d/b/a River Valley Loans ("River Valley Loans" or "RVL"). With the Tribe serving as the face of the scheme, the Non-Tribal Defendants have attempted to cloak themselves in the Tribe's sovereign immunity, thereby (supposedly) placing them beyond the reach of usury laws. On its website, River Valley Loans purports to be a tribal lending business that is owned by Dakota Economic Development Corporation ("DEDC"), which is "a sovereign economic arm, enterprise, and instrumentality of, and created under the laws of and for the benefit of, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe." But, in reality, the Tribe has virtually nothing to do with the operation of the lending business. The Tribe's control over the RVL lending enterprise is nothing more than a façade: it is the Non-Tribal Defendants (and other non-tribal schemers) that provide the infrastructure to market, underwrite, service, fund, and collect the loans. It is also the Non-Tribal Defendants that primarily profit from these loans, with only a small portion of the illegal revenues generated flowing to the Tribe. The Non-Tribal Defendants may be creative, but they are not above the law. Indeed, courts routinely reject such cynical efforts to use tribal immunity to insulate plainly illegal commercial conduct. The Non-Tribal Defendants' predatory and illegal lending scheme cannot be shielded by the laundered sovereign immunity of the Tribe. The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Classes, seeks to recover damages and penalties under state and federal law for the usurious interest and fees obtained by the Non-Tribal Defendants, and also seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against the Tribal Defendants to halt their illegal practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person, citizen of the State of California, and resident of San Diego, California. Eric Welch is a natural person and citizen of the State of Texas. Welch is the Chief Executive Officer, Secretary, and Chief Financial Officer of CreditServe, Inc. Welch is not a member of the Tribe.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. John G. Albanese, Esq. Ariana B. Kiener, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: (612) 594-5999 Fax: (612) 584-4470 Email: moconnorgrant@bm.net jalbanese@bm.net akiener@bm.net FCA US: Cuneo Gilbert Replaces Lockridge as Co-Lead Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP has replaced Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP as one of the class plaintiffs' counsel in the putative class action, Frisch et al v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-10546 (E.D. Mich.). The case arises out of an alleged battery defect in certain model years 2020-2024 Jeep Wrangler 4xe and model years 2022-2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4xe plug-in hybrid electric vehicles that were designed, manufactured, and marketed by FCA US LLC. The Court previously granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Appointment of Interim Co-lead Counsel on June 5, 2025. Since the filing of that motion, attorney Robert Shelquist, who was with Lockridge, at the time of the filing of the motion, is now affiliated with Cuneo. The Court therefore granted Plaintiffs' request to substitute Cuneo in place of Lockridge. The Miller Law Firm, P.C.; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P.; and Slack Davis Sanger, LLP remain as Interim Co-Lead Counsel as previously ordered. * * * Meanwhile, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Plaintiff Jade Wadleigh voluntarily dismissed without prejudice all of her claims in the above-captioned case. Plaintiff Christopher Wadleigh continues to pursue his claims on behalf of himself and the putative class. The voluntary dismissal is not intended to, nor should it be construed to, constitute a dismissal of any other plaintiff or any other claim in this litigation. The remaining plaintiffs continue to pursue their claims on behalf of the proposed Class. * * * Judge Brandy R. McMillion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan established a comprehensive protocol for common benefit work and expenses in the case captioned as Frisch et al v. FCA US, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-10546 (E.D. Mich.). The Court ordered the implementation of detailed guidelines governing attorney fees, expenses, and work coordination for this class action litigation. Court's Leadership Order and Authorization The Court's Leadership Order previously appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel and invited Co-Lead Counsel "to submit a proposed order establishing a protocol for common benefit work and expenses." Co-Lead Counsel drafted a Protocol for Common Benefit Work and Expenses, which the Court found consistent with similar protocols adopted in this district, including those in In re Ford Super Duty Roof Crush Litigation and In re: Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation. The Court therefore ordered entry of the attached protocol to govern common benefit work and expenses. Class Action Status and Participating Counsel Framework The Court established that "if and to the extent that this litigation is certified as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for purposes of resolution or trial, any award of fees and costs for common benefit work will be governed by the standards and procedures of Rule 23, including Rule 23(h)." The Court emphasized that "no award or payment of common benefit fees or costs shall be made without this Court's approval." The Court defined "Participating Counsel" as "Co-Lead Counsel (along with members and staff of their respective firms), any other counsel authorized by Co-Lead Counsel to perform work that may be considered for common benefit compensation, and counsel who specifically have been approved by the Court as Participating Counsel before incurring any such cost or expense." The Court clarified that "eligibility for payment does not pre-determine payment." Requirements for Common Benefit Work The Court established that Participating Counsel shall be eligible to receive common benefit attorney's fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses only if the time expended, costs incurred, and activity in question were "(a) for the common benefit of the plaintiffs; (b) timely submitted; and (c) reasonable." The Court required that Participating Counsel "must agree to the terms and conditions herein, including submitting to this Court's jurisdiction and agreeing that this Court has plenary authority regarding the award and allocation of common benefit attorney's fees and expense reimbursements in this matter." Co-Lead Counsel Responsibilities The Court assigned Co-Lead Counsel responsibility for "collecting monthly common benefit time and expense submissions from Participating Counsel, auditing the submissions for compliance with the directives set forth in this Order, and informing Participating Counsel when their submissions do not comply with the directives set forth in this Order." However, the Court reserved to itself "the ultimate determination of what is compensable common benefit work, and the extent or rate at which it is compensable." Compensable Common Benefit Work Categories The Court defined "Common Benefit Work" as including "all work done and expenses incurred that inure to the common benefit of the plaintiffs and putative class members in this class action." The Court provided detailed examples of compensable work: 1. Consolidated Pleadings and Briefs The Court specified that compensable work includes "(a) factual and legal research and preparation of consolidated class action complaints and related briefing; (b) responding to inquiries from class members; (c) communications with clients in response to Co-Lead Counsel's requests regarding proposed class representatives; (d) comments and suggestions regarding the consolidated class action complaints; and (e) class-related issues and briefing related thereto are compensable." 2. Depositions The Court ordered that "Co-Lead Counsel shall exercise discretion, judgment, and prudence to designate only the number of attorneys to participate in any given deposition that is commensurate with the nature of that deposition so as to avoid over-staffing." The Court noted that "time and expenses for Participating Counsel not designated as one of the authorized questioners or otherwise authorized to attend the deposition by Co-Lead Counsel may not be considered Common Benefit Work." 3. Periodic Status Conferences The Court established that "except for Co-Lead Counsel or their designees, attending and listening to such conferences is not compensable Common Benefit Work." The Court explained that "mere attendance at a status conference will not be considered common benefit time, and expenses incurred in relation thereto will not be considered common benefit expenses." 4. Expert Witness Work The Court ruled that "if a Participating Counsel retains an expert without the knowledge and approval of Co-Lead Counsel, time and expenses attributable to that endeavor may not be approved as Common Benefit Work." Conversely, "communications with and retention of experts with the knowledge and approval of Co-Lead Counsel will be considered common benefit time." 5. Discovery and Document Review The Court specified that "only discovery and document review authorized by Co-Lead Counsel and assigned to an attorney or law firm will be considered Common Benefit Work." The Court required that descriptions associated with "document review" should contain sufficient detail to allow those reviewing the time entry to generally ascertain what was reviewed and include, for example, the custodian, search query, or number of document folders reviewed." Timekeeping and Billing Protocols The Court established comprehensive timekeeping requirements, stating that "all time must be accurately and contemporaneously maintained." The Court ordered that "Participating Counsel must keep contemporaneous billing records of the time spent in connection with Common Benefit Work on this class action, indicating with specificity the hours (in tenth-of-an-hour increments) and billing rate, along with a description of the particular activity." The Court mandated that "each time entry must be categorized using one of the categories in Addendum A" and emphasized that "under no circumstances should a submitting firm make up new categories for use in its submission." The Court prohibited block billing and required that "when possible, a more specific category should be used in place of a more general category." Expense Protocols: Shared Costs and Held Costs The Court established two categories of expenses: 1. Shared Costs The Court defined "Shared Costs" as "costs that will be paid out of the Litigation Fund administered by Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel." The Court ordered that "Co-Lead counsel shall contribute to the Fund at times and in amounts sufficient to cover plaintiffs' expenses for the administration of this class action." The Court specified that "all Shared Costs must be approved by Co-Lead Counsel before payment." 2. Held Costs The Court defined "Held Costs" as "those costs and expenses that will be carried by each attorney in this class action and reimbursed as and when Co-Lead Counsel determines to do so." The Court established detailed limitations for travel expenses, including restrictions on airfare, hotel accommodations, meals, and other travel-related costs. Submission Requirements and Deadlines The Court ordered that "time submissions shall be made to Co-Lead Counsel on a monthly basis, by deadlines, and in accordance with the guidelines set forth herein." The Court established that "the first submission is due on August 15, 2025 and should include all time and expense from inception of work on this case through July 31, 2025." The Court required that "attorneys must provide receipts for all expenses; each firm must provide receipts along with their monthly expense submissions, in PDF form (not hard copy)." The Court specified that "any common benefit expenses submitted more than six months in arrears may not be considered or included in any compilation of common benefit expense calculation and may be disallowed, except for good cause shown and with the approval of Co-Lead Counsel." Court's Authority and Final Determinations The Court emphasized its plenary authority over fee determinations, stating that "counsel may use their customary billing rates in monthly time reports. However, use of those rates does not guarantee payment. The Court will exercise its discretion to determine reasonable and appropriate rates as the circumstances may warrant." The Court made clear that "nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to affect any proceedings other than those involving the authorities, duties, responsibilities, guidelines, and rules of and for the plaintiffs' counsel." FRYING PAN INC: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Clay Lee Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FRYING PAN, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05518 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, www.fryingpan.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates www.fryingpan.com (its "Website"), offering features which should allow all consumers to access the services that Defendant offers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GARDA CL WEST: Paredas Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as IVAN Daniel Mendoza Paredas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GARDA CL WEST, INC. doing business as GARDA WORLD, Case No. 25CECG02408 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Fresno, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00781-EPG. The Plaintiff asserts claims for Violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Provide Timely and Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Waiting Time Penalties; and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Phone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: malcolm.heinicke@mto.com - and - Joseph D. Lee, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3426 Phone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: Joseph.Lee@mto.com GOURMET NUT: Gonzales Sues Over Underfilling of Products -------------------------------------------------------- Geneva Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOURMET NUT INC., a New York corporation, d/b/a WWW.GOURMETNUT.COM, Case No. 2:25-cv-06108 (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), and the False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and the Business & Professions Codes as result of the Defendant's underfilling of the Products. To increase profits at the expense of consumers and fair competition, Defendant deceptively sells its products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are almost half empty. Defendant's slack-fill scam extends to its 14-ounce "Power Up Premium Trail Mix Protein Mix" product sold in mostly opaque containers (the "Product"). The Defendant markets the Product in a systematically misleading manner by representing it as adequately filled when, in fact, it contains an unlawful amount of empty space or "slack-fill." Defendant underfills the Product for no lawful reason. The front of the Product's packaging does not include any information that would reasonably apprise Plaintiff of the quantity of product relative to the size of the container, such as a fill line. The Defendant's slack fill scheme not only harms consumers, but it also harms its competitors who have implemented labeling changes designed to alert consumers to the true amount of product in each container. The Plaintiff and consumers have, accordingly, suffered injury in fact caused by the false, unfair, deceptive, unlawful, and misleading practices set forth herein, and seek injunctive relief, as well as, inter alia, compensatory damages, statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a bag of Defendant's 14-ounce Power Up Premium Trail Mix Protein Mix for personal use in 2025 from Target for $6.39. Gourmet Nut Inc. sells a popular line of trail mix products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com HARD EIGHT: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Text Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARD EIGHT NUTRITION LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 6:25-cv-00144-AA (D. Or.), Judge Ann Aiken of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon denied Hard Eight Nutrition LLC's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint and, in the alternative, motion to stay the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that he "registered his cellular telephone number with the Do-Not-Call Registry" and that the Defendant, "corporation that resides in this District," sent him "at least three text messages 31 or more days after Plaintiff registered telephone number" in violation of the TCPA's do-not-call provision. According to the complaint, "the purpose of the subject text messages was to advertise and market Defendant's business or services" and "Plaintiff did not give Defendant prior express consent or permission to deliver advertisement or marketing text messages to telephone number." The Plaintiff further alleges that he "does not have a landline telephone number in his home" and uses his cell phone "for personal use only as one would use a landline telephone in the home," "primarily to communicate with friends and family, and also to schedule personal appointments and for other household purposes." He also alleges that he "is not reimbursed by a business for his cell phone plan." The Plaintiff claims that "as a result of the subject text messages he suffered an invasion of privacy, an intrusion into his life, and a private nuisance." He also alleges that the Defendant "routinely violates" the TCPA in similar ways as to members of the putative class. The Defendant moved to dismiss the claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that "the claim should be dismissed because the TCPA's do-not-call provision applies only to residential telephone subscribers, not cell phone users like Plaintiff." The central question before the Court was whether a cell phone is a residential telephone under the TCPA do-not-call provision, Section 227(c). The Court explained that "Congress enacted the TCPA to protect consumers from the unwanted intrusion and nuisance of unsolicited telemarketing phone calls and fax advertisements." The TCPA consists of two subsections with private rights of action: "(1) Section 227(b), the automated telephone equipment provision, and (2) Section 227(c), the do-not-call provision." The Court noted that in 2003, in response to Congress's instruction, the FCC created the Do-Not-Call Registry which allows a consumer to opt out of receiving marketing calls by placing their phone number on a national registry." The FCC issued a rule that "wireless subscribers" were presumptively "residential subscribers" under the do-not-call provision. The FCC found that wireless subscribers often use their wireless phones in the same manner in which they use their residential wireline phone" and that "there is a growing number of consumers who no longer maintain wireline phone service, and rely only on their wireless telephone service." The FCC concluded that "it is more consistent with the overall intent of the TCPA to allow wireless subscribers to benefit from the full range of TCPA protections. The Court referenced that "deferring to the 2003 FCC interpretation, the Ninth Circuit held that a cell phone is presumptively a residential phone under Section 227(c) -- even a cell phone that is used for both personal and business uses" in Chennette v. Porch.com, Inc. The Defendant argued that neither the 2003 FCC Order nor the Chennette decision controls here." Regarding the FCC Order, the Defendant maintained that Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo "overturned prior law demanding that courts mechanically afford binding deference to agency interpretations and that the Court must independently interpret the statute. The Court disagreed with the Defendant's position, stating that "the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself" and that "words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." The Court found that the Defendant's comparison of Sections 227(b) and 227(c) was flawed because "the sections are not comparable." The Court explained that "Section 227(b), titled Restrictions on use of automated telephone equipment, lists the telephone technologies used to generate and transmit the telemarketing calls" while "Section 227(c), titled Protection of subscriber privacy rights, focuses not on the equipment used to generate and transmit calls but on end-user protections. The Court analyzed the ordinary meaning of "residential telephone subscribers," explaining that "the ordinary, contemporary, and common meaning of a telephone subscriber is an individual who makes regular payments to use telephone service on an ongoing basis." The Court determined that "residential telephone subscribers refers to individuals, subscribers, who make regular payments to use telephone service at home, that is, people who use a telephone for a personal or private purpose—a use traditionally tied to the home—as opposed to a commercial or business use." The Court found that the Defendant's interpretation "conflicts with the express aim of the TCPA and of Section 227(c)." The Court noted that "the TCPA was enacted to protect the privacy interests of residential telephone subscribers by placing restrictions on unsolicited, automated telephone calls to the home." The Court reasoned that the Defendant's interpretation "would protect the privacy interest of a home landline subscriber but not a home cellular subscriber—even when a cell phone is the sole phone for home use, as is increasingly the case. Without deferring to the FCC, the Court independently concluded that the FCC got it right. Given the text, structure, and purpose of Section 227(c) and of the TCPA as a whole, a cell phone is presumptively a residential telephone under the TCPA do-not-call provision, Section 227(c). The Court found that the Plaintiff "sufficiently pleads a claim under Section 227(c)(5) of the TCPA" because he "alleges that he placed his cell phone number on the Do Not Call Registry and that Defendant sent him at least three marketing texts in the next 12 months. The Court noted that the Plaintiff also alleges that he does not have a home landline, that his cell phone is his residential telephone that he uses for personal and household purposes as he would use a home landline and that a business does not pay his cell phone bill. The Defendant alternatively moved to stay the case pending the Supreme Court decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. The Court denied this motion as moot because "the Supreme Court recently decided McLaughlin and it was considered in this opinion." A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qLi0Lq HERITAGE'S DAIRY STORES: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, Dennis Maurer, as individuals, The Independence Project, Inc., a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation, and others similarly situated v. HERITAGE'S DAIRY STORES, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-12738 (D.N.J., July 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiffs encounter architectural barriers at many of the places that they visit. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. They Plaintiffs have visited the various Properties across the southern New Jersey region on numerous occasions over the years. They Plaintiffs have visited the Properties as bone fide patrons with the intent to avail themselves of the goods and services offered to the public within but encountered a litany of ADA violations across the many locations – both in architecture and policy. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired persons. The Defendant's properties are a chain of convenience stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com JCG INDUSTRIES: Ruffin Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as David Ruffin and Leo Mondy III, on behalf of themselves and other individuals similarly situated, known and unknown v. JCG INDUSTRIES, INC. and REMEDIAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANPOWER, INC., Case No. 2025CH03287 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-07257. The Amended Complaint alleges that JCGI and REM violated: The Illinois Minimum Wage Law (the "IMWL"), by failing to pay Plaintiffs' all overtime wages (Count I); and The Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (the "IWPCA"), by deducting the cost of certain protective clothing and equipment from Plaintiffs' wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Stephen J. Siegel, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 100 North Riverside Plaza Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 419-6900 Email: ssiegel@atllp.com - and - Ida Shafaie, Esq. Jenna M. Lakamp, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP 7700 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Phone: (314) 621-5070 Facsimile: (314) 621-5065 Email: ishafaie@atllp.com jlakamp@atllp.com - and - Genevieve LeFevour, Esq. BUCHALTER 180 North LaSalle Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 980-7043 Email: glefevour@buchalter.com JYM ENTERPRISES: Casas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JYM Enterprises, Inc. The case is styled as Fabiola Casas, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. JYM Enterprises Inc. California stock corporation d/b/a Jack In The Box, Case No. 25STCV18889 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." JYM Enterprises Inc. doing business as Jack in the Box, Inc. -- https://www.jackinthebox.com/ -- is an American fast food restaurant chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah H. Cohen, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com KHOROS LLC: Church Sues Over Failure to Provide WARN Act Notice --------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Church individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Khoros, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01018 (W.D. Tex., June 27, 2025), is brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the "WARN Act"), by the Plaintiff against Defendant, his employer for WARN Act purposes as a result of the Defendant's failure to provide proper WARN Act Notice, 60 days' in advance. The Defendant abruptly terminated at least 115 employees, including Plaintiff, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff. The Plaintiff was terminated on or around June 24, 2025, as part of a mass layoff without proper notice. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated former employees who worked for Defendant and were terminated as part of the foreseeable mass lay off or plant closing ordered by Defendant on June 17, 2025 and within 90 days of that date and who were not provided 60 days' advance written notice of their terminations by Defendant, as required by the WARN Act, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked in digital sales. The Defendant is an employer located in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael K. Hurst, Esq. Sara Hollan Chelette, Esq. LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201-7919 Phone: (214) 981-3800 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839 Email: mhurst@lynnllp.com schelette@lynnllp.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: 615/254-8801 Facsimile: 615/255-5419 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: (608) 237-1775 Fax: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com KUEHNE + NAGEL: Garcia Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Hiram Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. KUEHNE + NAGEL INC., Case No. 250603367 (Pa. Ct. of Common Please, Philadelphia Cty., June 27, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, seeking all available relief under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), alleging that Defendant violated the PMWA by failing to pay wages for all time associated with security screening and associated activities arising at the beginning and end of the workday. The Plaintiff, like other class members, has been generally scheduled to work a minimum of 40 hours per week for Defendant at the Alburtis facility. For example, Plaintiff was credited with working 55.58 hours during the week ending January 27, 2024. The Defendant, as a matter of policy, fails to pay Plaintiff and other class members for all compensable hours as required by the PMWA. In calculating the wages owed to Plaintiff and other class members, Defendant has not paid Plaintiff and class members for the time associated with the types of mandatory activities. As such, Plaintiff and other class members have not received overtime wages for all time associated with such compensable activities during, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant at the Alburtis facility. The Defendant is a corporate entity in the global transporting and logistics business with a presence all over the world including the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. Mark Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: (215) 884-2491 LAUNDRY 201: Salas Sues to Recover Unpaid Minimum Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Floridelia Salas, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated employees v. LAUNDRY 201 LLC (DBA GRACIES LAUNDRY) BENJAMIN WEISGAL and EDUARDO HUERTA, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-05525 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), including the Wage Theft Prevention Act ("WTPA"), and the related provisions of Title 12 of the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations ("NYCRR"), to recover, inter alia, unpaid minimum wage compensation. The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to pay and compensate Plaintiff at a minimum rate of $16.00 per hour (the "minimum wage"); however, Plaintiff was only compensated at rates ranging from $12.00 to $13.50 per hour, which were significantly below the legally mandated minimum wage, resulting in substantial underpayment for each hour worked. The Defendants' systematic and willful conduct extended beyond Plaintiff to all other similarly situated employees, establishing a pattern and practice of wage violations; and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants maintain a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other employees to work without providing the compensation required by federal and state law and regulations, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a deli clerk, under the direct supervision and control of Defendant. The Defendants owned and operated ROSE DELI & NEWSPAPER INC., a corporate entity principally engaged in Nanuet, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12t Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 203-2417 Email: info@StillmanLegalPC.com LEVI STRAUSS & CO: Whitfield Suit Removed to D. Nevada ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jermaine Whitfield, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LEVI STRAUSS & CO.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. A-25-913872-C was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, District Court, to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01205. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts a distinct federal cause of action: Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The First, Second, and Third Causes of Action – Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of NRS 608.018; Failure to Pay Wages for Each Hour Worked in Violation of NRS 608.016; and Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due at Termination in Violation of NRS 608.020 et seq. relate to Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. These claims arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Mariner, Esq. Jason Kuller, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 North Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 The Defendants are represented by: Anthony L. Martin, Esq. Noel M. Hernandez, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10801 W. Charleston Blvd., Suite 500 Las Vegas, NV 89135 Phone: 702.369.6800 Fax: 702.369.6888 Email: anthony.martin@ogletreedeakins.com noel.hernandez@ogletreedeakins.com MICHAEL FOODS: Gray Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Wyonna Gray, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MICHAEL FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00742-EAS-CMV (S.D. Ohio, July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to pay employees overtime wages, seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees frequently worked more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant maintains a policy or practice that does not pay employees for all time spent performing pre- or post-shift work and accordingly does not compensate them for all time spent performing integral and indispensable work activities. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees were not paid overtime wages for all overtime work performed because the Defendant's policies and/or practices required pre- and post-shift work for which the Defendant failed to fully compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly production employees, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendant at its facility in West Jefferson, Ohio. The Defendant is in the business of offerings producing and supplying food services, food ingredients, and retail.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com MICHIGAN: Judge Greenlits Class Suit Over Edenville Dam Collapse ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Davidson, writing for Michigan Advance, reports that more than five years after the Edenville and Sanford Dams failed due to record rainfall, bringing catastrophic flooding and property damage, a Court of Claims judge has greenlit a class action lawsuit from residents and business owners who argue state agencies ignored warning signs leading to the dam's failure. Court of Claims Judge James Robert Redford, in a July 3 order, granted a host of plaintiffs class certification, allowing them to move forward with a class action suit against the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy and the Department of Natural Resources. The plaintiffs will move forward under three classes: the real property class, or all persons who owned property in the impacted area; the personal property class, or all people who owned or leased property in the impacted area and the business class, which encompasses individuals who owned a business in the impacted area. The plaintiffs allege the two departments are responsible for the collapse, arguing that state regulators ignored repeated warnings about safety risks, but continued to permit the dam operator, Boyce Hydro, to raise the water levels within the lake created by the Edenville Dam. According to the July 3 order, the agencies have denied all claims in the lawsuit. "We are pleased that the court has certified this case as a class action, allowing a single trial to determine whether the State of Michigan is responsible for the Edenville Dam failure," Jason J. Thompson, an attorney representing the class plaintiffs, said in a statement. "This decision paves the way for thousands of individuals and hundreds of businesses—whose lives and livelihoods were upended by the catastrophic flood—to seek justice through an efficient and unified process. We look forward to presenting the case at trial in January 2026 and working toward a fair and equitable resolution to this five-year legal battle." Danny Wimmer, a spokesperson for the Michigan Department of Attorney General, which is representing the two departments, said the Edenville Dam's failure was tragic and the Attorney General sympathizes with those impacted by the dam's collapse. However, the state is not responsible, he said. "We expect this litigation will not be successful as the plaintiffs do not have evidence to support their allegations. Conversely, the evidence in this matter confirms that the state agencies are not responsible for the dam's failure," Wimmer said. The Edenville Dam was not a state dam, Wimmer noted, with flood survivors suing the dam's owner and forcing them to liquidate their assets. State agencies also sued the dam's owner, resulting in a nearly $120 million judgment for violating Michigan's Natural Resource and Environmental Protection Act. "The parties agreed to the Court's limited certification of the liability class in this matter; this was not a contested issue before the Court," Wimmer said, noting the liability class is only tied to the matter of liability. No class has been certified in pursuing damages, Wimmer said. [GN] MIDEA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Moldy Air Conditioners ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Adams of About Lawsuits reports that a New York woman has filed a class action lawsuit less than a month after Midea recalled nearly 2 million window air conditioners due to design flaws that may allow mold to grow inside the units, potentially causing severe respiratory health problems for individuals using the air conditioners. The complaint was brought by Latazia Canon-Rivera in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 27, naming Midea America Corp. as the defendant. A Midea window air conditioner recall was announced by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission on June 5, impacting 1.7 million U and U+ model window air conditioners sold in the U.S., under various brand names, including Midea, Comfort Aire, Danby, Frigidaire, Insignia, Keystone, LBG Products, Mr. Cool, Perfect Aire and Sea Breeze. The recall followed at least 152 reports of mold contamination, including 17 cases where consumers experienced respiratory infections, allergic reactions, coughing, sneezing and sore throats linked to the air conditioners. Mold exposure can cause these types of respiratory symptoms, even in otherwise healthy individuals. For those with conditions like asthma, exposure may worsen symptoms. In rare cases, certain molds can produce toxins that lead to more serious health effects, including infections and neurological complications. In her lawsuit, Canon-Rivera claims that Midea has made the recall process for the defective air conditioners so burdensome that it has discouraged everyday consumers from seeking relief. According to the complaint, the recall offered consumers a refund or repair, but required those seeking a refund to unplug the unit, cut the power cord, label it "Recalled," photograph the disabled device and dispose of it according to local regulations. Repairs would then require either waiting for a technician or completing a self-repair kit, depending on the model. Canon-Rivera argues that the recall process was unnecessarily burdensome and inadequate given the severity of the health risks. The lawsuit claims Midea should have offered full refunds by default, alleging the recall was designed to limit the company's liability while leaving consumers with unusable and potentially hazardous products. "The hazardous nature of the Noticed Product and propensity for harm from the Noticed Products makes a full refund the proper method of recall. However, in order to achieve this recall Defendant makes the process so arduous for ordinary consumers that it deters consumers from doing so." -- Latazia Canon-Rivera v. Midea America Corp. Canon-Rivera brings claims of unjust enrichment, as well as violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. She seeks class action certification on behalf of all affected consumers, including a subclass for New York residents. The lawsuit demands disgorgement of profits Midea earned from the recalled air conditioners, restitution, equitable relief, and an injunction requiring the company to fully disclose the safety risks associated with the defective units. [GN] NEIMAN MARCUS: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action for $3.5M ------------------------------------------------------------------ Top class Actions reports that Neiman Marcus agreed to pay $3.5 million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it failed to prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised customer information. The Neiman Marcus settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was potentially compromised in the Neiman Marcus data breach in May 2024. As a result of the Neiman Marcus data breach, consumers allegedly suffered identity theft, fraud and other damages. According to a class action lawsuit against Neiman Marcus, the company could have prevented the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Neiman Marcus is a luxury retailer with locations across the United States. In May 2024, the company allegedly fell victim to a data breach that compromised sensitive customer information. All class members can receive two years of free credit monitoring through the settlement. This credit monitoring is valued at $108 per year, for a total value of $216. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Sept. 23, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Neiman Marcus data breach settlement is scheduled for Oct. 23, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Oct. 8, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers whose personal information was compromised in the Neiman Marcus data breach in May 2024. Potential Award Up to $2,500 in documented losses and two years of free credit monitoring Proof of Purchase Receipts, invoices, account statements, phone bills, correspondence or other documentation of data breach-related losses. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 10/08/2025 Case Name In re: Snowflake, Inc. Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana Final Hearing 10/23/2025 Settlement Website NMGSettlement.com Claims Administrator Neiman Marcus Data Breach Litigation Settlement Administrator PO Box 3058 Portland, OR 97208-3058 info@NMGSettlement.com (855) 338-2018 Class Counsel John Heenan HEENAN & COOK PLLC Jason S. Rathod MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP J. Devlan Geddes GOETZ, GEDDES & GARDNER PC Raphael Graybill GRAYBILL LAW FIRM PC Defense Counsel Neil Gilman P. Reiko Koyama HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLC PEACEFUL WAY: Cazares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Peaceful Way Home Care. The case is styled as Adriana Cazares, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A Peaceful Way Home Care, Case No. 25STCV18819 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., June 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." A Peaceful Way Home Care -- https://apeacefulwayhomecare.com/ -- are a provider of in-home senior care for seniors living in Palos Verdes, Torrance and the surrounding Los Angeles South Bay area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung L. Yang, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 1055 W 7th St., Ste. 1880 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2529 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: seung.yang@moonyanglaw.com PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Deceptive Snack Products ------------------------------------------------------------------ Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit claims that bags of PopCorners are filled with unlawful amounts of non-functional empty space known as "slack-fill," misleading consumers into thinking they will receive an amount of the snack product proportional to the size of the bag. The 25-page PopCorners lawsuit against manufacturer PepsiCo contends that the company "deceptively sells its products in oversized packaging that does not reasonably inform consumers that they are over half empty." Per the case, PopCorners underfills bags of the popped corn snacks, including the seven-ounce Sea Salt PopCorners variety, to save money and "deceive consumers into purchasing the Product over its competitors’ products." As the complaint tells it, even if a consumer were to shake a bag of PopCorners to try to determine the quantity of product therein, they would not be able to detect any non-functional slack-fill, let alone the "significant amount" of empty space inside the opaque bag. Though some slack-fill is necessary and legal to use in certain product packaging in order to protect the food within, the suit alleges that the slack-fill inside PopCorners bags well exceeds the acceptable amount. The case states that the average consumer takes only about 13 seconds to make an in-store purchase decision. Additionally, when it comes to food purchases, research shows that the size of the container plays a significant role in that decision, with larger packages having a higher likelihood of being purchased, as they are perceived to contain more product, the filing relays. The complaint claims PopCorners falsely advertises its product by intentionally using larger bags than necessary so as to encourage consumers to buy the snack. The PopCorners class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone who bought a PopCorners snack bag in California for personal use and not for resale in the past four years. [GN] PRIME TIME: Court Rejects Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, writing for The National Law Review, reports that a window washing company in Chicago is caught in a TCPA class action arising out of their apparent use of prerecorded calls to contact consumers. In Bulgart v. Prime Time Window Clearning, 2025 WL 1899536 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2025) the Plaintiff claims she never worked with PTWC but was still called numerous times by the company despite never giving her consent. Per the complaint Plaintiff tried her best to stop the calls. She requested they stop. She made a negative review on Google -- which PTWC allegedly responded to -- and also made a BBB complaint. But the calls continued. So she hired Anthony Paronich -- the Wolf -- to bring a TCPA class action against PTWC and, needless to say, its going well for her. For instance the Court just utterly destroyed PTWC's hopes of an early exit from the case. Concluding the allegations were more than sufficient to state claims under both the TCPAs DNC rules and regulated technology provisions -- as well as under the rules preventing marketing calls without adequate policies -– the court easily rejected the window washing company's motion to dismiss. So PTWC is in for a long ride with the Wolf likely looking for a serious pound of flesh in this one. At least no one has been personally named in the suit -- yet. Take away here is clear -- doesn't matter if you're a large company or a small window washer, you MUST obey the edicts of the TCPA. Maintain an up-to-date DNC policy, follow revocation requests, and NEVER deploy prerecorded or artificial voice calls or voicemails (or AI outreach) without the proper level of consent! [GN] QUALITY CLEANERS: Jenkins Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quality Cleaners LLC. The case is styled as Howard Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality Cleaners LLC doing business as: Royal Hive Cleaning, Case No. 9:25-cv-80815-XXXX (S.D. Fla., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Quality Cleaners LLC doing business as Royal Hive Cleaning -- https://www.royalhivecleaning.com/ -- offers premium cleaning services in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. REAL TIME STAFFING: Lucero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Valentin Lucero, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Real Time Staffing Services, LLC, GXO Logistics, Inc., Case No. 25CV128535 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., June 27, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case." Real Time Staffing Services, LLC -- https://realtimeservices.com/ -- is a staffing company that provides payroll funding, back office support, and other services to independent staffing companies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com REALTY ONE GROUP: Gill Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Realty One Group, Inc. The case is styled as Anna Gill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Realty One Group, Inc., Case No. 8:25-cv-01733 (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Realty ONE Group -- https://www.realtyonegroup.com/ -- is a Laguna Niguel, California-based real-estate brokerage and franchising company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stefan Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN, PLLC 18117 Biscayne Blvd-Ste 4152 Miami, FL 33160 Phone: (877) 333-9427 Email: law@stefancoleman.com RED BULL DISTRIBUTION: Brilliant Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Scott Brilliant, and other similarly situated individuals v. RED BULL DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, INC., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 2025-001588-CA-01 was removed from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on June 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-22903-XXXX. Because the Complaint alleges claims arising under the FLSA, this is a civil action arising under the laws of the United States over which this Court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard C. McCrea, Jr., Esq. Catherine H. Molloy, Esq. Andrea E. Nieto, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 101 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Ste. 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 318-5700 Facsimile: (813) 318-5900 Email: mccrear@gtlaw.com molloyk@gtlaw.com Andrea.Nieto@gtlaw.com SAFEWAY INC: Somera Suit Removed to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jun Marvin Somera, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. SAFEWAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 25-2-16624-4-SEA was removed from the Superior Court of King County, Washington, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01251. The Plaintiff asserts two causes of action for alleged failure to pay wages owed based on a purported failure to provide legally compliant meal and rest periods and willful withholding of wages. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's productivity standards encourage putative class members to work through meal and rest periods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald W. Heyrich, Esq. Jason A. Rittereiser, Esq. Rachel M. Emens, Esq. Joseph W. Wright, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-2504 Fax: (206) 260-3055 Email: dheyrich@hkm.com jrittereiser@hkm.com remens@hIcm.com jwright@hkm.com The Defendants are represented by: D. Michael Reilly, Esq. Priya B. Vivian, Esq. Erin M. Wilson, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2800 Seattle, WA 98101-3808 Phone: 206.223.7000 Facsimile: 206.223.7107 Email: reillym@ballardspahr.com vivianp@ballardspahr.com wilsonem@ballardspahr.com SAIA MOTOR: Amaya Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Robert Amaya, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated and aggrieved v. SAIA MOTOR FREIGHT LINE, LLC, a Louisiana Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2511628 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06093. The Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action against Defendant on behalf of himself and the putative class: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Furnish Timely, Accurate, Wage Statements; Failure to Pay all Wages Upon Separation; Failure to Reimburse all Necessary, Business-Related Expenses; Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; and Civil Penalties Pursuant to PAGA.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christopher J. Archibald, Esq. Amelia Alvarez, Esq. Ethan W. Smith, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000 Irvine, CA 92614-7276 Phone: (949) 223-7000 Facsimile: (949) 223-7100 Email: christopher.archibald@bclplaw.com amelia.alvarez@bclplaw.com ethan.smith@bclplaw.com - and - Pamela Carroll Calvet, Esq. BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 120 Broadway, Suite 300 Santa Monica, CA 90401-2386 Phone: (310) 576-2100 Facsimile: (310) 576-2200 Email: pccalvet@bclplaw.com SHAWN CARTER: Standing Order Entered in Satterthwaite Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYMIR SATTERTHWAITE, v. SHAWN COREY CARTER, Case No. 2:25-cv-04251-SPG-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered a standing order for newly assigned civil cases: The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). Proposed Orders Must be Lodged and Served. Each party filing or opposing a motion or seeking the determination of any matter shall serve and lodge a proposed order setting forth the relief or action sought and a brief statement of the rationale for the decision with appropriate citations. Motions, Pleadings, and Trial Documents. The parties must provide one (1) Mandatory Chambers Copy only of Motions for Summary Judgment filings. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. Many motions to dismiss or strike can be avoided if the parties confer in good faith as required by Local Rule 7-3, especially for perceived defects in a complaint, answer, or counterclaim that can be corrected by amendment. If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. Shawn is an American rapper, businessman, and record executive. A copy of the Court's order dated June 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HzIqrb at no extra charge.[CC] SPECTRUM CABLE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Deceptive Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Chloe Gocher of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Spectrum Cable fraudulently claims that the "Broadcast TV Surcharge" it issues to subscribers is a government-imposed charge or pass-through fee when it is really a discretionary charge implemented by Spectrum. The 10-page first amended complaint says Spectrum Cable, a cable television operator that provides cable services across the U.S. on a paid subscription basis, deceptively and misleadingly represents its monthly Broadcast TV Surcharge as a programming-related fee to cover the costs of retransmitting broadcast television signals. According to the lawsuit, while Spectrum's website lists its Broadcast TV Surcharge as a "pass-through fee reflecting charges from local broadcast or affiliate TV stations," implying that it is mandated by outside sources or factors, there is allegedly no external mandate for the charge from any broadcaster or government entity. Per the suit, the surcharge is "entirely within Spectrum's control" and represents a source of profit for the company. The lawsuit claims that any actual retransmission costs that Spectrum pays are far lower than would warrant the approximately $28-per-month Broadcast TV Surcharge issued to all Spectrum subscribers. "If Spectrum's representations were accurate -- that this fee is a mere pass-through cost -- Spectrum would be paying local [Louisville, Kentucky] stations over $33 million annually in retransmission fees," the complaint relays. The lawsuit further claims that the Broadcast TV Surcharge is not listed with or included in the price point that Spectrum advertises for its services, making consumers believe that it is not included in the base service fee. Per the case, this violates state and federal laws requiring cable operators to transparently disclose the total cost of programming. The Spectrum class action lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Kentucky who was charged a Broadcast TV Surcharge as part of their personal-, family- or household-use Spectrum subscription within the applicable statute of limitations. [GN] SPIRIT PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Approval Hearing Moved to Sept. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing to consider final approval of the settlement reached in the case captioned as Lorena Abarza Rios v. Spirit Pharmaceuticals LLC, Case No. 23-CV-03637 (JMW) (E.D.N.Y.) has been adjourned to September 19, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Magistrate Judge James M. Wicks granted the Motion to Adjourn Conference, pushing back the Final Hearing date from June 26, 2025. Magistrate Judge Wicks previously granted Plaintiff Lorena Abarza Rios's motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. The court conditionally certified the class for settlement purposes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, granted preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, appointed the plaintiff as Class Representative, appointed Pechman Law Group PLLC as Class Counsel, approved Arden Claims Service LLC as Claims Administrator, approved the proposed notice, and scheduled a Final Approval Hearing for June 26, 2025. The court also conditionally approved the FLSA collective action under Section 216(b), finding the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. Plaintiff, employed as a packager and machine operator by Spirit Pharmaceuticals, alleged that she and other non-managerial employees worked up to 79 hours per week without overtime compensation. From July 2019 to September 2019, Abarza worked 17 hours per week, and from October 2019 to November 2019, she worked 79 hours per week. From December 2019 to April 2022, excluding a two-month period due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she worked approximately 59 hours per week, and from May 2022 until her employment ended on January 4, 2023, she worked approximately 42 hours per week. Throughout her employment, Abarza received $13 to $15 per hour without overtime pay and was not provided spread-of-hours pay for shifts exceeding 10 hours. The defendant allegedly failed to use a time-punch system before 2020, "shaved off" employees' recorded hours, instructed workers not to use the punch system on weekends, and failed to provide wage notices or statements. On May 16, 2023, the plaintiff filed a class and collective action asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., New York Labor Law (NYLL) Section 190 et seq., and the NYLL’s Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) Sections 195, 198. The claims included: (1) unpaid minimum wages under NYLL (2) unpaid overtime wages under FLSA (3) unpaid overtime wages under NYLL (4) spread-of-hours pay under NYLL (5) failure to provide wage notices under WTPA (6) failure to provide wage statements under WTPA (7) frequency of payments under NYLL. The plaintiff argued that the proposed settlement class, comprising approximately 1,156 non-managerial employees at the defendant's Ronkonkoma, New York facility from May 16, 2017, to October 25, 2023, met Rule 23 requirements for certification. The plaintiff contended that numerosity was satisfied due to the impracticality of joinder, commonality and typicality were met because all class members were subject to the same alleged unlawful policies, and adequacy was fulfilled as her interests aligned with the class and her counsel was experienced. For the FLSA collective action, the plaintiff argued that she and the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated, affected by the defendant's common pay practices. The $1,500,000 settlement was reasonable given the defendant's $13,000,000 debt and dissolution following an Article 9 Foreclosure transaction. The settlement was negotiated at arm’s length after reviewing approximately 4,000 payroll documents, with an effective distribution method and reasonable attorneys' fees of $500,000. Upon careful examination, the court found that the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a) requirements. Numerosity was met with approximately 1,156 class members, exceeding the 40-member threshold. Commonality and typicality were established, as the plaintiff and class members shared the same injury -- unpaid overtime wages -- due to the defendant's policies. The court determined that the plaintiff's interests were not antagonistic to the class, and her counsel, Pechman Law Group PLLC, was qualified, having handled over 300 wage-and-hour cases. The predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) were satisfied, as the common issue of unpaid overtime wages predominated, and a class action was more efficient than individual lawsuits. The court also found that the plaintiff met the lenient standard for conditional FLSA collective action certification, showing that she and the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated. The court evaluated the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2) and the Grinnell factors, finding it fair, adequate, and reasonable. The settlement was negotiated at arm's-length after substantial discovery, and the $1,500,000 fund was reasonable given the defendant's financial distress. The distribution method, managed by Arden Claims Service LLC, was effective, with notices to be mailed, emailed, or texted within 15 days of receiving the contact list. The attorneys' fees of $500,000 were within the range of reasonableness, and the release provisions were appropriately limited to wage-and-hour claims. SUPER MICRO COMPUTER: Universal-Investment Named Lead Plaintiff --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case Joseph Averza, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Super Micro Computer, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-06147-EJD (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied the motion of Crain Walnut Shelling, LP to be appointed lead plaintiff in a putative securities class action. The court held that Crain Walnut's filing inaccuracies and reluctance to participate in discovery raised serious doubts about its adequacy to represent the class. In a separate order, the court appointed Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiff but granted leave for Crain Walnut to file a motion for reconsideration. On August 30, 2024, Joseph Averza filed a complaint alleging federal securities violations against Super Micro Computer, Inc. and its executives. Ten class members filed motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). Most withdrew or filed non-opposition statements, leaving the Crain Walnut and Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH as the primary contenders. The court followed the PSLRA's three-step process: public notice and motion filing, identifying the presumptive lead plaintiff, and allowing rebuttal of the presumption. The court's task was to appoint the "most capable" lead plaintiff under the PSLRA. Crain Walnut claimed the largest financial loss at $49,153,069 and made a prima facie showing of satisfying typicality and adequacy requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, making it the presumptive lead plaintiff. Universal challenged the Plaintiff's suitability, prompting limited discovery into its ownership structure, financial condition, and ability to establish reliance. Universal argued that Crain Walnut was atypical due to unique defenses on standing, reliance, and loss causation, and inadequate due to issues with litigation oversight, financial condition, case familiarity, filing inaccuracies, and discovery participation. The court adopted the "genuine and serious doubt" standard for rebutting the presumption, noting it is lower than the preponderance standard used at class certification. The court also permitted Universal to raise issues beyond the discovery scope, citing its fiduciary duty to absent class members. The court rejected Universal's typicality arguments. On standing, it found that Crain Walnut's margin purchases did not negate its beneficial ownership, sufficient for standing. Regarding reliance, the court noted that testimony from the Plaintiff's representative, Charles Crain, Jr., about not relying on Super Micro's statements was irrelevant due to the Basic presumption of reliance. For loss causation, the court deemed Crain's dismissal of a Wall Street Journal article immaterial, as it depends on market reactions. According to the court, "potential reliance issues do not create genuine and serious doubt about [the Plaintiff's] typicality". The court evaluated Universal's five adequacy concerns. It found no issues with litigation oversight, as discovery confirmed Crain's sole control. Financial condition concerns were speculative, with the Plaintiff's statements showing it could continue as a going concern. Crain's case familiarity was adequate, despite semantic confusion, as he understood the claims' gravamen. However, the court found the Plaintiff's filing inaccuracies and discovery reluctance problematic. It misrepresented its ownership structure, omitting key entities and a trust, and failed to fully correct these errors despite notice. Its Rule 3-15 certification also omitted required disclosures. Additionally, the Plaintiff delayed document production, applied excessive redactions, and Crain testified he would defy a court order to produce personal records. The court stated, "Together, the concerns about the Plaintiff's lack of care and unwillingness to participate in discovery leave the Court with genuine and serious doubts." A copy of the Court's order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=50B6Ok * * * Crain Walnut has filed a motion for reconsideration. TABLEU SOFTWARE: $5,500 in Residual Settlement Funds Donated ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge John G. Koeltl of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order approving the donation of residual settlement funds in the case titled Scheufele et al. v. Tableau Software, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-05753-JGK (S.D.N.Y.). The case had reached the settlement distribution stage, and after distributing the Net Settlement Fund to class members, approximately $5,500 in de minimis residual funds remained. The court approved thee Lead Counsel's motion to donate the remaining $5,500 to Legal Services NYC, a non-profit organization that supports law-related programs for legal services organizations throughout New York City. The organization is unaffiliated with Lead Counsel. The donation was made pursuant to Section 5.10 of the Stipulation of Settlement (ECF 173). The lead plaintiff Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust was represented by David Avi Rosenfeld, Esq., at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. The other plaintiffs including Carrie Scheufele were represented by Christopher James, Esq., at Levi & Korsinsky, LLP. Defendants were represented By Koji Francis Fukumura, Esq. Jeffrey D. Lombard, Esq. Christopher B. Durbin, Esq. Daniel Richard Bromwich, Esq. Jonathan Paul Bach, Esq. Cooley LLP Tel: 858-550-6008 206-452-8700 212-479-6000 212-479-6470 E-mail: kfukumura@cooley.com jlombard@cooley.com cdurbin@cooley.com dbromwich@cooley.com jbach@cooley.com TRACTOR SUPPLY: Keesler Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Chelsea L. Harrison Keesler, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the Plan v. Tractor Supply Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01612 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on June 27, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00715 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as E.R.I.S.A. for Labor and Employee Benefits. Tractor Supply Co (TSC) -- https://www.tractorsupply.com/ -- is a rural lifestyle retailer, offering farming equipment, tools, and maintenance products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. George A Hanson, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Ste. 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Phone: (816) 714-7100 Fax: (816) 714-7101 Email: ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com hanson@stuevesiegel.com - and - Derrek William Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110-9380 Phone: (717) 238-5707 Fax: (717) 233-8133 Email: dcummings@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com - and - Ryan L. McClelland, Esq. MCCLELLAND LAW FIRM, P.C. The Flagship Building 200 Westwoods Drive Liberty, MO 64068 Phone: (816) 781-0002 Email: ryan@mcclellandlawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Karuna Dave, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1350 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: (267) 319-7802 Email: karuna.dave@jacksonlewis.com - and - Lindsey H. Chopin, Esq. Rene E. Thorne, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. (LA OFFICE) 650 Poydras Street, Suite 1900 New Orleans, LA 70130 Phone: (504) 208-1755 Fax: (504) 208-1759 Email: Lindsey.Chopin@jacksonlewis.com ThorneR@jacksonlewis.com UNITED STATES: Judge Blocks Attempt to End Birthright Citizenship ----------------------------------------------------------------- Holy Ramer and Mike Catalini of AP News report that a federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling Thursday, July 10, prohibiting President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump's order and certified a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected. The order, which followed an hour-long hearing, included a seven-day stay to allow for appeal. The judge's decision puts the birthright citizenship issue on a fast track to return to the Supreme Court. The justices could be asked to rule whether the order complies with their decision last month that limited judges' authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The Supreme Court said district judges generally can't issue nationwide, or universal, injunctions. But it didn't rule out whether judges could accomplish much the same thing by a different legal means, a class action. The class approved in New Hampshire is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who wanted to include parents, but attorneys said that wouldn't make a material difference. "This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order," said Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It's among numerous cases challenging Trump's January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others. At issue is the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The Trump administration says the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century. "Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country's sovereignty, national security, and economic stability," government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case. LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn't consider the government's arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was "not a close call" and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm. "That's irreparable harm, citizenship alone," said LaPlante. "It is the greatest privilege that exists in the world." White House spokesman Harrison Fields accused LaPlante, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, of "abusing class action procedures." "The Trump Administration will be fighting vigorously against the attempts of these rogue district court judges to impede the policies President Trump was elected to implement," he said in a statement. During the hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric Hamilton argued that both approving a class action and issuing an injunction would be premature, given that no one other than Trump has taken action. He said doing so would mean a single court could become the "end-all-and-be-all" in reversing new federal policies and said if anything, the injunction should be limited to New Hampshire. Similar cases are pending from Washington to Maryland. It's not time to panic, said Ama Frimpong, legal director at nonprofit immigrant rights organization CASA, which is also seeking a nationwide injunction. "No one has to move states right this instant," she said. "There's different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day." The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs. "I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement," she wrote. "I fear our family could be at risk of separation." Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties -- his wife's father is a U.S. citizen. "My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States," he wrote. [GN] VIKI INC: Data Privacy Class Suit Settlement Reaches $8-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that an $8 million settlement has been reached to resolve a class action lawsuit that alleged streaming service Viki disclosed subscribers' identities and video-viewing data to Facebook without permission, in violation of a federal privacy law. The court-approved website for the Viki class action settlement can be found at VikiVPPASettlement.com. The deal covers all consumers who, between January 12, 2016 and July 30, 2024, requested or obtained video content on Viki.com while in the United States and at a time when they had accounts with both Facebook and Viki. Eligible class members who file a valid claim form by the deadline will be entitled to receive a pro-rated share of the $8,000,000 settlement fund, after the deduction of attorneys' fees, administrative costs and service awards. The deadline to submit a Viki settlement claim form is September 22, 2025. Claim forms can be filed online on this page. To submit a Viki claim form, consumers must provide their unique ID and PIN, which are located on the personalized settlement notice that was issued about the deal, and a link to their Facebook profile page. Instructions on how to obtain your Facebook profile link can be found under question 16 on the FAQ page on the official Viki settlement website. According to the official Viki settlement website, individual payment amounts are estimated to be between $30 and $150 per person, based on data from similar cases. The site adds that the final figure may be higher or lower than these estimates, depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed. The deal received preliminary approval from United States District Judge Rita F. Lin on June 3, 2025. The parties await a hearing on October 21 of this year, at which time the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the settlement agreement. The deal must be given final approval, and any appeals must be resolved, before Viki settlement payments begin to be distributed to eligible class members, the website says. The class action suit against Viki claimed that the platform unlawfully shared user data by way of a Meta pixel, a tracking tool that transmits information directly to Facebook for use in marketing campaigns. By disclosing subscribers' personally identifying data without their knowledge or authorization, the company violated the federal Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), the Viki privacy lawsuit contended. The Viki class action settlement agreement relays that, should the deal receive ultimate court approval, the platform has agreed not to operate the Meta pixel on any web page with video content unless use of the tracking tool complies with the VPPA or the law is amended, repealed or otherwise invalidated. [GN] VILLAS MARKET: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. VILLAS MARKET PLACE, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-05512 (S.D.N.Y., July 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.gardengourmetmarket.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com VOXELMAPS INC: Paiz Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Luis H. Oliva Paiz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. VOXELMAPS INC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV456496 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Santa Clara, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-05640. On May 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in the Action. On June 4, 2025, Defendant accepted service of the FAC.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tracy A. Warren, Esq. Alicia A. Belock, Esq. Nima D. Shull, Esq. BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation 655 West Broadway, Suite 1600 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619.219.5335 Fax: 619.219.5344 Email: twarren@buchalter.com abelock@buchalter.com nshull@buchatler.com VYTL CONTROLS: Soares Sues Over Failures to Pay All Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Mark Soares, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VYTL CONTROLS GROUP f/k/a PVI HOLDINGS, INC., W&O SUPPLY, INC., and VALVE AUTOMATION AND SUPPLY OF SAN DIEGO, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00826-UNA (D. Del., July 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendants seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the California Labor Code ("Labor Code"), based on Defendants' failures to pay all wages earned for all hours worked at the correct rates of pay; reimburse necessary business expenses; timely pay all earned wages, and pay all vested vacation time. The Defendants' willfully misclassified Plaintiff and other Inside Representatives Sales as exempt employees under the FLSA, and their failure to pay Plaintiff and other Inside Sales Representatives legally required overtime premiums at one- and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants as an Inside Sales Representative from June 2021 until the present. The Defendants are one of the world's largest suppliers of pipes, valves, fittings as well as actuation and engineered solutions to the maritime and upstream oil and gas industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell Paul, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 800 N. West Street, Suite 200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 691-9545 Fax: (215) 875-4620 Email: rpaul@bm.net - and - Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A La Mesa, CA 91942 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: apiazza@bm.net - and - Michael J. Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000 Email: manderson@bm.net WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Rosario Casillas, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV14537 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on July 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-06086. The Complaint brings putative class claims for an alleged: Unpaid Overtime Wages; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Final Wages Not Paid Timely; Wages Not Timely Paid During Employment; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Failure to Keep Requisite Payroll Records; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq. Melis Atalay, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com melis.atalay@ogletree.com - and - Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: mitchell.wrosch@ogletree.com WENDT BROTHERS: Cheli Sues Over Inaccessible Property ----------------------------------------------------- Charlene Cheli, an individual, on her own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated v. WENDT BROTHERS III, L.L.C., a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-12769 (D.N.J., July 3, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination ("LAD"). The Plaintiff encounters architectural barriers at many of the places that she visits. Seemingly trivial architectural features such as parking spaces, curb ramps, and door handles are taken for granted by the non-disabled but, when improperly designed or implemented, can be arduous and even dangerous to those in wheelchairs. The Plaintiff has visited the Property--and the tenant spaces therein--on several occasions, her last visit having occurred on or about April 5, 2025. The Plaintiff has visited the Property, including Primo Hoagies and Hammonton News, with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that the Property a contained ADA violations--both in architecture and policy. The ADA has been law for over 30 years and the Property remains non-compliant. Thus, the Plaintiff has actual notice and reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to discrimination by the Defendants, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a mobility impaired person. WENDT BROTHERS III, L.L.C., owns and/or operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a shopping center/plaza.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N. East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Phone: (609) 319-5399 Email: js@shadingerlaw.com WEST SHORE HOME: Walker Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Shore Home, LLC. The case is styled as Chancelyn Walker, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. West Shore Home, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01179-JFS (M.D. Pa., June 27, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. West Shore Home, LLC -- https://westshorehome.com/ -- is a highly-rated home renovation & remodeling company in your area, specializing in baths, windows, doors, and flooring.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Henry Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Henry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0006268 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on July 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01914-DAD-AC. The Complaint purports to state causes of action for: Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged or Quitting Employees; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Necessary Expenditures Incurred in Discharge of Duties; Unlawful Deductions from Wages; and Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: James C. Fessenden, Esq. Lauren M. Guggisberg, Esq. Julia A. Sherwood, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 4747 Executive Drive, Suite 1000 San Diego, California 92121 Phone: (858)597-9600 Facsimile: (858)597-9601 Email: jfessenden@fisherphillips.com lguggisberg@fisherphillips.com jsherwood@fisherphillips.com - and - Landon R. Schwob, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213)330-4500 Facsimile: (213)330-4501 Email: lschwob@fisherphillips.com YI JIA HAPPY: Zhuang Sues Over Unlawful Employment Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Sheng Jian Zhuang, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. YI JIA HAPPY CORP., COSCO SHIPPING (NORTH AMERICA) INC., DAVID C. LIU a/k/a David Chia Yun Liu, and TZYH KOO a/k/a Tzyhjen Koo a/k/a Tzyh Jen Koo a/k/a Tzyh Chyang Koo a/k/a Tzyh Chyang Koo a/k/a Jenny Koo, Case No. 2:25-cv-12773 (D.N.J., July 6, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), arising from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and practices. The Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the FLSA and NJWHL by engaging in pattern and practice of failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiff, minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees their lawful overtime compensation of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. While employed by Defendants, Plaintiff was not exempt under federal and state laws requiring employers to pay employees overtime. Defendants failed to keep full and accurate records of Plaintiff's hours and wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a cook for the Defendants. YI JIA HAPPY CORP. is a domestic profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron B. Schweitzer, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 110 Flushing, NY 11355 Phone: (718) 762-1324 Email: troylaw@troypllc.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***